Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.

Friday, June 12, 2009

Meyers, Keasler, should be Dems' CCA electoral targets

The Dallas News' Michael Landauer writes that "Lawrence Meyers, the longest-serving member of the Court of Criminal Appeals, says he's running for re-election. In doing so, he cites the court's reputation for fairness. Try not to laugh." The other two Texas CCA judges up in 2010 are Michael Keasler and Cheryl Johnson, all Republicans.

There is no liberal wing on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. There's a conservative wing, to which Judge Johnson belongs, and a more or less totalitarian wing, in which Keasler and Meyers reside along with Presiding Judge Sharon Keller.

I respect and support Judge Johnson, who has been a key leader on the court standing up to Judge Keller and trying to haul its reputation out of the muck. IMO, she's earned her spot battling it out in the trenches with Keller and Co. for the soul of the court. The Dems would have to come up with a stellar candidate for me to consider voting against her. Against Keasler and Meyers, I'd be much less picky: This court desperately needs new blood.

12 comments:

Anonymous
said...

Grits, I must disagree with you on one point. The Chief Judge belongs in a category all by herself. I think of her as the more or less wacko-authoritarian wing of the Court. Not be be confused with the non-wacko-authoritarian wing which includes Judge Womack.

You can add Tom Price to your list of liberals on the CCA as well. Has he ever voted to uphold a death sentence? The truth of the matter is that the CCA has been sliding further and further to left as time goes along. What some members of the left fail to understand is that in the vast majority of criminal appeals, the verdict of the jury should be affirmed. Given the fact that the burden of proof on the prosecution is "beyond a reasonable doubt," when the jury returns a guilty verdict that verdict should be generally upheld except in those cases were error is egregious. Judges who routinely affirm convictions and sentences for guilty defendants are merely doing the job that the voters elected them to do.

I am conservative and I look upon our present criminal justice system with complete disgust. If these justices consider themselves to be conservatives and Christians, I suggest that they examine the Bible with regard to standards of evidence. I completely believe that the Bible was a significant source for the formation of our Western Justice System. The Bible commands that civil government be a terror to evil doers, but has strict requirements for passing judgment. These requirement do not include the phariseeical standards articulated by anonymous at 4:50 PM.

Although I believe that civil government is empowered to employ the death penalty, I can no longer support the use of such a penalty because of the corruption and politicization inherent in our present system. The use of jailhouse snitches, the lack of consequences to those who bear false witness and the "win at all costs" attitude of career prosecutors as well as all of the points that Grits addressed here: http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.com/2005/11/requiring-corroboration-for-eyewitness.html have convinced me that our justice system has lost the integrity necessary to administer the death penalty.

"Judges who routinely affirm convictions and sentences for guilty defendants are merely doing the job that the voters elected them to do."

The above is a sickening statement. It defines the attitude that "might makes right", a completely utilitarian notion that it at odds with our Constitutional Republic and Biblical standards of justice .

wow "egregious error" is the new standard of review in ALL cases? I missed that memo. And what about jury verdicts where the jury was deliberately prevented from hearing potentially exculpatory evidence?

Justice is about balance and fairness in resolving conflicts and availablity of opportunities. It is not defined by the number of convictions notched in the prosecutors belt or the number of appeals that affirm the state's position.

The sad history of justice in Texas is that justice has been construed by many conservatives to mean knee jerk (often ideologically driven) punitive responses and "zero tolerance policies." Such simplistic approaches amount to ineffective symbolic policy response to complex and deeply entrenced social problems. They are more interested in "send a message" than dealing with the underlying social problems. The end product is to produce injustice rather than justice.

The rigidly punitive and ideological judicial philosophy of the majority of Justices on the CCA - is less concerned about justice than reflexive reinforcement of state authority. This is the antithesis of justice because -- in all but the most eggregious cases -- the ideological fix is in....

Yes, Tom Price has repeatedly affirmed death sentences. Describing him as a liberal would be a sick joke. In fact, there is no member of the current court who has not voted to uphold death sentences. You can find the court's opinions on their website if you know the name of the defendant/appellant you are interested in (which is not user-friendly, but then what is user-friendly about this court, unless you are a prosecutor?).

Jeez, exactly what is your definition of 'liberal' if members of the CCA fit in there? I've read more than my share of CCA opinions and I can't say I've ever read something I considered liberal. Absurd? Yes (usually, in fact). Stretching the bounds of common sense? You betcha. But liberal? No. Thurgood Marshall on the SCOTUS, that was a liberal (God rest is soul).

GfB Writer Bios

Subscribe by email

Support Grits via Donation

Donate to Grits via PayPal. Grits is a hobby, but donations help cover newspaper subscriptions, periodic travel, open records fees, etc.. Donate if you can! When I have resources, the blog can do more stuff!

"I always tell people interested in these issues that your blog is the most important news source, and have had high-ranking corrections officials tell me they read it regularly."

- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project

"a helluva blog"

- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent

"Congrats on building one of the most read and important blogs on a specific policy area that I've ever seen"

- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties

GFB "is a fact-packed, trustworthy reporter of the weirdness that makes up corrections and criminal law in the Lone Star State" and has "shown more naked emperors than Hans Christian Andersen ever did."

-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe

"Grits really shows the potential of a single-state focused criminal law blog"

- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog

"I regard Grits for Breakfast as one of the most welcome and helpful vehicles we elected officials have for understanding the problems and their solutions."

Tommy Adkisson,Bexar County Commissioner

"dude really has a pragmatic approach to crime fighting, almost like he’s some kind of statistics superhero"

- Rob Patterson, The Austin Post"Scott Henson's 'Grits for Breakfast' is one of the most insightful blogs on criminal justice issues in Texas."

- Texas Public Policy Foundation

"Nobody does it better or works harder getting it right"

David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"

"I appreciate the fact that you obviously try to see both sides of an issue, regardless of which side you end up supporting."

Kim Vickers,Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and EducationGrits for Breakfast "has probably broken more criminal justice stories than any TX reporter, but stays under the radar. Fascinating guy."

Maurice Chammah,The Marshall Project"unrestrained and uneducated"

John Bradley,Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau

"our favorite blog"

- Texas District and County Attorneys Association Twitter feed"Scott Henson ... writes his terrific blog Grits for Breakfast from an outhouse in Texas."